Sasquatch: Bear In Human Form?

[MagniAesir]

8 hours ago, FarArcher said:

 

 

I like the cut of your jib.  I like the way you think.  

 

I don't blame you - I didn't believe in those things either.  Never thought about them.  In my previous business all my life, I've been in some of the most remote areas on earth, and while I've been surprised when running into lots of animals I'd never thought much about - at least they were all known critters.

 

But, I got shocked.  You have a very healthy attitude, and I commend it.

 

My respects.

Thank you

[norseman]

We have to follow the fossil record.

 

Is there a bipedal bear with a human form somewhere in the fossil record?

 

What class of mammal is Patty most likely going to fall in?

[Drew]

Or what about a human in Bear form?

 

You know how far a human is from a bear?

 

You might as well say Raccoon in human form

 

or, Porcupine in Bipedal Ape form.

 

Oh, wait, I know! Giant Sloth in Bigfoot form!!  That's the ticket.

[WSA]

I have to admit Hiflier, I'm left a little bit confused by the whole hypothesis, so I'll not weigh in, but just wanted to note, for what it is worth: Not all bears are cellulose intolerant. Thanks to specialized bacteria, giant pandas subsist largely on a diet of it, in the form of bamboo. I've long supposed BF have similar gut flora.

 

 

  

[WSA]

But, so, some clarification please.....

 

When you propose that BF is a bear in human form,  are your proposing this is a genetic hybrid of man/bear, or a creature that has evolved either from a bear or a human to gain the characteristics of both, or are you proposing some kind of supernatural origin?  Or, are you just proposing that looking at a BF's behavior/diet you see a lot of overlap between it and ursine attributes?

 

To my way of thinking, both are big, hairy and omnivorous. But then again, mammals that evolve under similar conditions almost always reach similar adaptive strategies. I'm really not trying to be flippant when I ask you: So what?   

[hiflier]

1 hour ago, WSA said:

But, so, some clarification please.....

 

When you propose that BF is a bear in human form,  are your proposing this is a genetic hybrid of man/bear, or a creature that has evolved either from a bear or a human to gain the characteristics of both, or are you proposing some kind of supernatural origin?  Or, are you just proposing that looking at a BF's behavior/diet you see a lot of overlap between it and ursine attributes?

 

To my way of thinking, both are big, hairy and omnivorous. But then again, mammals that evolve under similar conditions almost always reach similar adaptive strategies. I'm really not trying to be flippant when I ask you: So what?   

 

Absolutely in the areas diet and behavior attributes. But the capacity for function is greatly modified since the physical attributes are also greatly modified. But the entire Sasquatch is driven by what I see as a left-brained bear mentality. But the bear mentality has been given a new skill set that stems from its greater physical dexterity and ability.

 

I am not proposing a hybrid. Just (LOL) an entirely different species of bear. Another type of Yeti perhaps, which is Dr. Sykes Nepalese polar bear? Not a man/bear except for the similarities in its shape to a primate. Technically could be called a primate but only because of its shape- not because of its genetics. So I think it's a bear in origin, primate shaped yes, but bear all the way. And since there is much we don't know, and DNA comes back raccoon, bear, porcupine, and all manner of other known mammals, there is no reason to assume ape as an origin. We simply do not know enough to say that and our comparisons to ape is based purely on shape.

 

There are other mammals in this world that look like a particular species but aren't. And even though an animal may look like it belongs to a certain family of animals because of it's form its DNA says otherwise. Believe it or not ;)  in science it's called crypto biodiversity. Such as a fawn-like animal that is closer to the giraffe than the deer even though it looks like a deer. Hippos are closer to whales and dolphins.Because DNA has opened up a whole new world to science a lot of these "cryptos" are being discovered.

Edited August 15, 2016 by hiflier

[hiflier]

So.......as far as DNA goes? Sasquatch: closer to bear than ape or Human. DNA comes back bear but it also comes back with Human markers and in some cases "unknown primate". IF the bear scenario I've presented is the case then we've been going down the wrong path and since mainstream science doesn't really get involved we are left to think this way. As long as we think ape we will continue to miss the mark in the field as well as in our research and that of others. For all of the mystery at every scientific turn there shouldn't BE that much mystery for a living creature. Something is off somewhere and we all pretty much know it. And even though there have been rebuttals regarding the DNA end of this discussion DNA testing that has been done so far may be the only clue to what is really going on with this creature.

 

The way it behaves in the wild- regardless of it's shape- says bear. It does what bears do and more as a result of its design. IMHO there is nothing that specifically says ape or Human other that its design has allowed it to do APE and Human things above a bear's capabilities. It has the best of both worlds but not because it's a hybrid. I strongly think it to be and have the higher mentality of a bear who has learned the benefits of having a primate style body. Bit its drive and focus is no different than that of a bear. it thinks like a bear with a better skill set.

[Gotta Know]

On 8/12/2016 at 5:09 PM, sheri said:

Exactly MIB. When you have clearly seen one, there's no way you are going to think it's a human shaped bear.  After you have heard one, you would never think it's a bear. You also never get that idea from reading reports. You will get the idea that they are primate. They have primate tendencies, like rock clacking, breaking branches, grunting, bending trees, which gorilla's do to smaller trees, rock stacking, hooting. The list can go on. In fact it seems they do some things  from each ape group.

I've not spent much time on the general board in a very long time. Hiflier, I always appreciate your contributions, but I just think you are taking the easy way out on this one. To suggest that BF is somehow the human embodiment of a bear is simply taking two well-known things and smooshing them together to conveniently explain one truly unknown thing: BF. An apple and and orange might be familiar and understandable, but smashing them together does not make an exotic star fruit. Bad analogy, buy you get the idea.

 

Why can't the unexplainable Bigfoot be just that--a creature completely unknown and currently beyond our comprehension? For myself, other than its size and hair, I don't see any correlations of BF to a bear. To a human, yes. But I don't watch the Patty film and see any resemblance to a bear. None. And, the "Ohio howl" that boomed down the valley at dawn one morning in N. Californa (Penn Valley area) was both primate-like and other-worldly. Nothing bear-like about that thunderous wail.

 

Sheri's post was as far as I could go in this thread. I think she nails it. And her comment about "if it walks and quacks like a duck, it's a duck" is spot on. I just feel that trying to explain the BF phenomenon with two well-known creatures is too simplistic, and too convenient. No. Just no.

[hiflier]

Convenient though it may seem it has been far from that. One will not look at Patty and think bear. But that's the point of the whole matter. Folks have a picture of what a bear looks like. That picture is what they speak of when posts are put up that say, "HEY! I've seen them and they do not look like bears at all". That simply tells me they cannot get past the bear image so applying the bear concept to Sasquatch keeps pulling up the picture of a bear. So of course they will say that Sasquatch doesn't look like a bear!

 

A hippo doesn't look anything like a dolphin either. And If we were talking about hippos instead of Sasquatch and I said when you see a hippo think dolphin people would say "HEY! I've seen hippos and they don't look anything like a dolphin". It wouldn't matter because science saiys that hippos are very close to dolphins in their DNA. Different body shape entirely right? That's no different than what I'm saying about the Bearsquatch. Different body but closest to bears in their DNA. In my mind it's why testing hair samples comes back bear. Therefore within this concept THEY ARE NOT OUR CLOSEST COUSINS.

[Guest WesT]

2 hours ago, hiflier said:

 Therefore within this concept THEY ARE NOT OUR CLOSEST COUSINS.

I've been thinking about that since right about the time you started this thread. What's got me wondering is the reported speed and agility.

[FarArcher]

10 hours ago, Drew said:

Or what about a human in Bear form?

 

You know how far a human is from a bear?

 

You might as well say Raccoon in human form

 

or, Porcupine in Bipedal Ape form.

 

Oh, wait, I know! Giant Sloth in Bigfoot form!!  That's the ticket.

 

I have a former son-in-law who's gone from partial ******* to total *******.

 

I think I may have witnessed an accelerated genetic drift.

[hiflier]

FarArcher:  

 

Now that you mention it though science has actually been struggling a bit themselves with the evolutionary Ursine line. There has be some writing regarding the possibility of radiation events in the past creating some genetic hiccups. I've discussed gamma ray bombardments in the past around 40,000 years ago as well as around 12,000 years ago shown by high levels of the proxy signature Beryllium 10 in ice core studies. It's interesting reading for a geek like myself

 

@ Wes T: I have no issues with their speed or agility. The purported size and strength of such creatures with a more enhanced bear brain would mean they would to learn to maneuver in their habitat. Bears on all fours and other four-legged animals like horses can run up to 35 miles an hour. We Humans cannot- nor can other apes. Sasquatch however has been reported to run along side cars to around 35 mph. The issue is they are covered in hair and many hair and fur-bearing animals do overheat easily. On the flipside Humans were and are good long distance runners and so can wear game down by being able to stay cooler in their pursuit.  

Edited August 16, 2016 by hiflier

[MagniAesir]

10 hours ago, hiflier said:

So.......as far as DNA goes? Sasquatch: closer to bear than ape or Human. DNA comes back bear but it also comes back with Human markers and in some cases "unknown primate". IF the bear scenario I've presented is the case then we've been going down the wrong path and since mainstream science doesn't really get involved we are left to think this way. As long as we think ape we will continue to miss the mark in the field as well as in our research and that of others. For all of the mystery at every scientific turn there shouldn't BE that much mystery for a living creature. Something is off somewhere and we all pretty much know it. And even though there have been rebuttals regarding the DNA end of this discussion DNA testing that has been done so far may be the only clue to what is really going on with this creature.

 

The way it behaves in the wild- regardless of it's shape- says bear. It does what bears do and more as a result of its design. IMHO there is nothing that specifically says ape or Human other that its design has allowed it to do APE and Human things above a bear's capabilities. It has the best of both worlds but not because it's a hybrid. I strongly think it to be and have the higher mentality of a bear who has learned the benefits of having a primate style body. Bit its drive and focus is no different than that of a bear. it thinks like a bear with a better skill set.

No as far as DNA goes

A bear no matter what type it was, if it developed physical attributes like a sasquatch is said to have, it would have significant differences in DNA.

it would not simply be a black bear with a few genetic anomalies 

 

Also in your scenario of parallel evolution, the DNA of this bear, would not seem to have human DNA markers just because they evolved to look similar 

[Incorrigible1]

Folklore has it that were-creatures are active over the (approaching) full moon. Just thought I'd mention that fact. ::wanders away, aimlessly::

 

[norseman]

The human mind wants answers to questions that do not come easy.....its our nature.

 

But we must guard against ever more fanciful notions to explain away our unknowns.

 

The Bear family is on a similar evolutionary path with Apes to an extent. They are omnivores, they climb well, they are intelligent. But there are vast vast differences as well. They are not bipedal, they lack opposable thumbs, and they do not possess hominid sized brains. Dedicated feet gave rise to fully opposable thumbs, thumbs gave rise to.bigger and bigger brains. One feeds the other.

 

We see none of this...no inkling what so ever of any bear species moving that direction at any time in history.

 

If sasquatch truly is a bear....its because of misidentification. And not because there is a bipedal human looking bear out there completely evolved in isolation for tens of millions of years.

 

Quite frankly another great ape species is much closer to giving rise to a Sasquatch like species than any bear that ever lived.

 

And mag is right....dolphin dna does not look like shark dna despite both species resembling each other on the surface.